One of the most dazzling, direct if somewhat discomforting books I have ever read about the ethics of giving is by Australian philosopher Peter Singer. The life you can save is a brilliant if challenging book, and one I have wanted to recommend to readers for a while.
I guess part of the reason I have been holding off is because it can be so confronting. In this newsletter I like to offer hope, light and encouragement. But we also need to deal with truth – one of the meanings of the word ‘Dharma’ – even when this can be difficult.
So, today I’d like to tell you about this book, which I personally have found illuminating in clarifying my own thoughts about a tough subject.
If you are a newcomer to Peter Singer, he is known especially for his work on the ethics of our treatment of animals, and for his writings on the obligations of the affluent to help those living in extreme poverty. Although he isn’t a Buddhist – as far as I know – many of his views are consistent with the Dharma, as is the rigour with which he applies the logical implications of any particular position. A professor at Princeton University for many years, he has been awarded Australia’s highest civic honour, Companion of the Order of Australia.
As with other books I have recommended, I’d like to give you an overview of this one illustrated with the author’s own words, to give you a sense of both the main themes of the book, as well as his writing style.
The example of the toddler struggling in the pond
Prof. Singer begins by telling us of an example he shares when teaching a course called Practical Ethics:
You are on your way to work when you pass a small pond in which there is a toddler who is flailing about. You can’t see any parents or babysitter around and the child isn’t able to keep his head above water for more than a few seconds at a time. If you don’t do something quickly, he will drown. You can wade in to save him, but doing so will ruin the new shoes you bought only days ago. It will also make your suit wet and dirty. Plus, you will be late for work. What should you do?
Most people have little trouble responding to this ethical dilemma. Of course, I would save the child, they will say. How can you compare the inconvenience of being late for work, or the cost of replacing a pair of shoes with saving a child’s life?
Prof. Singer encourages us to explore the consequences of this conviction. In fact, much of the book flows from the example. What if the child was dying, not from drowning, but from measles? What if he could be cured, but his parents – through no fault of their own - didn’t have the money to pay for treatment? And what if he was living in a developing country, out of sight, on the other side of the world? Would you still save him?
“Now think about your own situation. By donating a relatively small amount of money, you could save a child’s life. Maybe it takes more than the amount needed to buy a pair of shoes – but we all spend money on things we don’t really need, whether on drinks, meals out, clothing, movies, concerts, vacations, new cars, or house renovations. Is it possible that by choosing to spend your money on such things rather than contributing to an aid agency, you are leaving a child to die, a child you could have saved?”
Our affluent lives
Most people have never had it so good as we do today. About a billion of us enjoy levels of wealth never known before, including privileges enjoyed by the wealthiest people of the past.
The ‘Sun King,’ Louis XIV of France, for example, could afford to build the most magnificent palace in Europe – but he couldn’t keep it cool in summer like most of us can with our own homes. He, and others of the most powerful people in times gone by didn’t have access to the kind of technology, healthcare, fresh produce or travel opportunities that many of us take for granted today.
At the same time:
“We live in a unique moment. The proportion of people unable to meet their basic physical needs is smaller today than it has been an any time in recent history, and perhaps at any time since humans came into existence.”
About 1.4 billion people live in extreme poverty. To which we could also add the billions of animals who are suffering at every moment. Do we have an ethical obligation to help them? Prof. Singer argues powerfully that we do. He points to the philosophical underpinnings of most societies and spiritual traditions, the Golden Rule, which is to treat others as we would wish to be treated if our positions were reversed.
Early in the book he uses the toddler in the pond example to lead us to the notion that where there is suffering and death, and we have the power to prevent it from happening, then we should.
So why don’t we?
Common ‘rational’ objections to giving
He takes looks at some of the most common reasons, some of which are valid, but others are not.
We work hard for our money and we should be free to spend it as we wish
Prof. Singer quotes Warren Buffett who pointed out that being born in social and economic circumstances that makes it possible to thrive is not a privilege extended to everyone: “If you stuck me down in the middle of Bangladesh or Peru, you’ll find out how much this talent is going to produce in the wrong kind of soil.” According to Nobel Prize-winning economist Herbert Simon, “social capital” is responsible for 90% of what people earn in wealthy societies.
We really owe nothing to those to whom we have done nothing wrong
If we were to see this argument through to its logical conclusion, says Prof. Singer, then all state welfare support for health-care, unemployed people etc should be ended right away. And nobody is suggesting that.
Being philanthropic undermines political change
This can sometimes be true, agrees Prof. Singer. It doesn’t apply everywhere, of course, and where it does, we need to be skilful in how we help.
Giving can create dependency
This is another valid reason to be careful how we give, he agrees, which is why some aid should only be offered in emergencies. In the case of the food that subscribers to this newsletter help give to pupils at remote Masuwe Primary school, our intention is not for this to be a permanent support, but one to be continued only until their vegetable garden and other agri-business activities are fully established.
My family and friends also need money
Sure, says Prof. Singer, but in anything remotely like the way that those living in extreme poverty need it? “Fortunately, most middle-class people in rich nations don’t have to make this choice.” We can do both.
Aid agencies are often mismanaged, incompetent or take too many donor dollars
Very true in some cases, Prof. Singer agrees. Which is why he and colleagues have audited many aid agencies according to rigorous and transparent measures, before recommending those which deserve support.
Common emotional reasons why we don’t give
Prof. Singer also explores the powerful emotional reasons why we don’t give. Psychologists have conducted fascinating studies in recent years, which shed light on these reasons.
Futility/overwhelm
What’s the point, we may feel? Nothing I do is going to help, there’s just too much need! In one study, psychologists found that people were more willing to give if they felt they could save 1,500 out of 3,000 people than 1,500 out of 10,000 people at risk. If we can’t help most people, we feel our giving is futile, even if for the 1,500 people our support is literally life-saving.
The opponent to this ‘drop in the ocean’ way of thinking is the starfish story which I imagine most readers here will be familiar with (about the person throwing stranded starfish back into the water). https://www.vedantu.com/stories/the-starfish
Parochialism
Most of us are genetically programmed to take care of our family, clan and tribe first. We care much less about those distant from us especially people on the other side of the world who we will never meet. But, as Prof. Singer points out, “far away is where the vast majority of the extremely poor are.”
The Buddhist response to this is the cultivation of equanimity – i.e. the understanding that other people are exactly the same as me in how I wish to experience happiness, avoid suffering - and stay alive. The more our understanding of equanimity deepens, the more likely it is to change our behaviour.
Diffusion of responsibility
Sometimes known as ‘the bystander effect,’ we are less likely to help if we feel that there are others who could be helping – but they aren’t. A fascinating psychology study was done when people were put in a room, supposedly to fill in forms before an exercise, and the woman giving them the forms went next door and could be heard apparently falling off a chair and crying out for help. In 70% of cases where only one person was filling in a form, they went next door to offer help. But when there were other people in the room with them also filling in forms – stooges - and none of them responded to the cry for help, only 7% went to see what they could do.
Sense of fairness
Closely related is a sense of fairness. Why should I sacrifice time or money when there are others who are much better off than me who do nothing? “Is our fair share really all that each of us is obliged to do?”
Returning to the example of the drowning toddler in the pond, with which he started the book, he expands on it. What if there are ten children who are drowning and need help? And while there are no parents or caregivers about, another nine people are also arriving at the pond and can see the drowning children. You jump in to rescue a child, expecting that everyone else will do the same thing. But only four other people do. The other five just keep walking.
The ‘fair share’ theorist would say that you have done your bit, and if everyone had been like you, all the children would be saved. You are under no obligation to do more. “But,” asks Prof Singer, “is it acceptable for you and the other four adults to stop after you have rescued just one child, knowing that this means five children will drown?”
A culture of giving
Having quietly demolished the reasons for not giving, both rational and emotional, Prof. Singer explores how we might create more of a culture of giving. Part of the reason why more people don’t give, he argues, is that “we are in thrall to the idea that to be ‘normal’ is to be self-interested.”
When everyone believes that everyone else is acting mainly out of self-interest, they are less likely to help.
But “contrary to what so many of us believe, there is an enormous amount of altruistic, caring behaviour in everyday life. However, the sociologist Robert Wuthnow found that even people who acted altruistically tended to offer self-interested explanations – sometimes quite implausible ones – for what they had done. They volunteered to work for good causes, they said, because it ‘gave me something to do’, or ‘got me out of the house.’ They were reluctant to say: ‘I wanted to help.’”
Giving makes us feel better
I feel sure that no readers of this newsletter need to be told that when we give of our time and money, our sense of wellbeing greatly increases.
“A survey of 30,000 American households found that those who gave to charity were 43 per cent more likely to say they were ‘very happy’ about their lives than those who did not give, and the figure was very similar for those who did voluntary work for charities as compared with those who did not. … The effect is particularly marked in older people – so marked, in fact, that there is even evidence that volunteering improves the health of elderly people and helps them to live longer.”
Even if none of the moral arguments for giving work for us, he suggests, we should try out giving and see how it feels.
Karma
Prof. Singer doesn’t discuss karma in his book, but Buddha said that our entire experience of reality is a projection of our karma. If, confronted by the suffering of others, our response is to ignore, to withhold, to fail to act, then we are creating a worldview that experiences exactly that.
This is one reason why compassion is front and centre of the Tibetan Buddhist practices. I can still vividly remember the last meeting I had with my kind guru, Geshe Thubten Loden. Leaning over the table he told me, emphatically, “A Dharma centre that does nothing to help those who are suffering is useless!”
This post is much longer than I had planned. But there’s just so much in this book that I wanted to share, and so much more that I could – and I am sorry if it makes for challenging reading.
But if you have made it this far, please also know that as a subscriber to this newsletter you are most definitely helping those who are among the neediest humans and other sentient beings, both in Africa and the Himalaya region.
The bottom line, from my perspective, is that Prof. Singer points out that if we really do believe that other sentient beings deserve to be helped, then we should act accordingly. He is calling out behaviour – specifically, how we spend our time and money – when it doesn’t match what we think we believe.
If you are open to a conducting a stimulating, rigorous, ‘take no prisoners’ interrogation of your own thoughts, feelings and behaviour about helping others, then I can’t recommend this book highly enough!
To explore further, please click on ‘The Life you can save website’ here, to get a copy of the book - including several foreign language translations. You can also review the many resources that Prof. Singer makes available.
I write this newsletter to raise funds for very deserving animal rescue centres in Zimbabwe and Buddhist not for profits. In each case I know the founders/directors personally - and how they stretch every donated dollar a surprisingly long way. I publish regular updates from these organisations on the impact of our support.
I spend most of each week doing my best to package the insights and practices I learn from my lamas into engaging, personally meaningful, transformational reading for you.
If you find these posts of value, please consider becoming a paying subscriber. In so doing, you will not only be practising compassion in action by helping those in real need. When we place value on teachings, we create the cause to see more of them in the future.
Our little community here on Substack supports: Wild is Life - home to endangered wildlife and the Zimbabwe Elephant Nursery; Twala Trust Animal Sanctuary - supporting indigenous animals as well as pets in extremely disadvantaged communities; Dongyu Gyatsal Ling Nunnery - supporting Buddhist nuns from the Himalaya regions; Gaden Relief - supporting Buddhist communities in Mongolia, Tibet, Nepal and India.
As we give, so we receive.
As we think, so we become.